alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
**Exhibit 32.1**
**Certification of Chief Executive Officer**
     Pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, as created by Section 906 of theSarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, the undersigned officer of United DefenseIndustries, Inc. (the “Company”) hereby certifies, to such officer’s knowledge,that:
     (i) the accompanying Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q of the Company forthe fiscal quarter ended September 30, 2004 (the “Report”) fully complieswith the requirements of Section 13(a) or Section 15(d), as applicable, ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended; and
     (ii) the information contained in the Report fairly presents, in allmaterial respects, the financial condition and results of operations of theCompany.   Dated:            November 4, 2004  /s/ Thomas W. Rabaut    Thomas W. Rabaut  President and Chief Executive Officer
The foregoing certification is being furnished solely to accompany the Reportpursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1350, and is not being filed for purposes of Section 18of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, and is not to beincorporated by reference into any filing of the Company, whether made beforeor after the date hereof, regardless of any general incorporation language insuch filing.
* Pursuant to 5 TH C IR

. R. 47.5, the court has d etermined that this opinion should not be published and is not

precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5 TH C IR R. 47.5.4.

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 98-30407

GULF SEAFOOD COMPANY OF EMPIRE, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Eastern District of Louisiana

(95-CV-2781)

February 9, 1999

Before WISDOM, STEWART and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM: *

Appellant Gulf Seafood Company of Empire, Inc., appeals the district court’s decision that

appellant’s sale of diesel fuel to a nearby business w a s not exempt from the excise tax otherwise

imposed by the Internal Revenue Code (“IRC”) § 409(a). The United States counterclaimed for the

balance of unpaid taxes owed by the appellant. Having reviewed the record, the applicable law, and

the briefs filed by counsel, we find no error in the judgmen t of the district court. For the reasons

excellently set forth in the district court’s ORDER AND REASONS, the judgment of t he district

court is AFFIRMED.
May 25, 1962

No. 66794. — Suit 5064.

#### Herman D. Steel Co. *v.*United States.

C.D. 2212 affirmed February 13, 1962. C.A.D. 790.
EXHIBIT 4.5

                   PLEDGED SHARE AMENDMENT


     This Pledged Share Amendment, dated as of June 23, 1993, is
delivered pursuant to Section 5 of the Pledge Agreement referred to
below.  The undersigned hereby agrees that this Pledged Share Amendment
may be attached to the Pledge Agreement dated as of May 26, 1992,
between the undersigned and Chemical Bank, as Trustee (the "Pledge
Agreement"; capitalized terms defined therein being used herein as
therein defined), and that the Pledged Shares listed on this Pledged
Share Amendment shall be deemed to be part of the Pledged Shares and
shall become part of the Pledged Collateral and shall secure all Senior
Obligations as provided in the Pledge Agreement.



               UNITED STATES BANKNOTE CORPORATION

               By: S/Jeffrey A.  Oberg
               Name: Jeffrey A.  Oberg
               Title:  Vice President,
               Finance and Corporate Development


                                                            Percentage of
                           Stock                            All Capital
                 Class of  Certificate  Par     Number of   Stock
Stock Issuer     Stock     Number       value   Shares      Outstanding

American Bank
Note Holographics,
Inc.             Common     8, 9        $0.01     2,000       20%

ABN Investments,
Inc.             Common     1           $1.00     10          100%
Part 1

SUPPLEMENT

DRAFT 

ID

Simple or

 Special Name Type Description Rule

122 SPECIAL Abnormal Balance Validation Compound

p g

specific USSGL accounts is restricted to TAS approved by OMB. Footnote 7 (Deadline June 2022), Footnote 8 (Deadline Sept 2021), Footnote 9 (Deadline June 2023), Footnote 10 (Deadline June 2023). Reporting 

abnormal balances for some USSGL accounts is restricted to TAS approved by OMB in the GTAS Override Request Exercise. For more information see the Abnormal Budgetary USSGL Account Balances Dashboard (https://go.max.gov/abnormalbalances). Fail 

U.S. Standard General Ledger

Data Validations - Summary

Bulletin No. 2023-02 DRAFT VII VSR - 1
----- Forwarded by Melanie King/RTP/USEPA/US on 08/10/2010 06:39 PM

----- |------------> | From: | |------------> >--------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------| |Melanie King/RTP/USEPA/US | >--------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------| |------------> | To: | |------------> >--------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------| |Cortney_Higgins@omb.eop.gov | >--------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------| |------------> | Cc: | |------------> >--------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------| |Michael Horowitz/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Fred Talcott/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, RobertJ Wayland/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Peter Nagelhout/DC/USEPA/US@EPA, Larry | |Sorrels/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA, Amy Lamson/RTP/USEPA/US@EPA | >--------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------| |------------> | Date: | |------------> >--------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------| |08/05/2010 01:48 PM | >--------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------| |------------> | Subject: | |------------> >--------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------| |revised RIA for SI RICE NESHAP | >--------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------|

Hi Cortney, Attached are the redline/strikeout and clean versions of the latest draft RIA for the SI RICE NESHAP. The version reflects responses to all interagency comments received up to now. Please let me know if you have any questions. (See attached file: Final SI RICE RIA 8-05-10draftOMBversionredlinestrikeout.doc)(See attached file: Final SI RICE RIA 8-05-10draftOMBversionclean.doc) Melanie King Energy Strategies Group Sector Policies and Programs Division Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Mail Code D243-01 RTP, NC 27711 Phone: (919) 541-2469 Fax: (919) 541-5450 king.melanie@epa.gov
No. 52221.

protest 81500-K/12523 (New Orleans).

#### Western Operating Corp. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

At the trial it was stipulated that the issue, vessel, and facts herein are the same in all material respects as those involved in *United States*v. *Western Operating Corp.*(35 C. C. P. A. 71, C. A. D. 373). The claim of the plaintiff was therefore sustained.
EXHIBIT 12



                                                    WHITMAN CORPORATION
                                                 STATEMENT OF CALCULATION
                                           OF RATIO OF EARNINGS TO FIXED CHARGES
                                               (in Millions, Except Ratios)



<TABLE>
<CAPTION>


                                                                        Years Ended December 31,
                                                     -------------------------------------------------------------
                                                        1996         1995         1994         1993         1992
                                                     ---------    ---------    ---------    ---------    ---------
<S>                                                  <C>          <C>          <C>          <C>          <C>
Earnings:
Income from Continuing Operations before Taxes       $   275.7    $   259.7    $   212.7    $   212.2    $   170.6
Fixed Charges, Excluding Capitalized Interest             84.7         86.7         82.2        105.9        106.9
                                                     ---------    ---------    ---------    ---------    ---------

Earnings as Adjusted                                 $   360.4    $   346.4    $   294.9    $   318.1    $   277.5
                                                     =========    =========    =========    =========    =========


Fixed Charges:
Interest Expense                                     $    72.2    $    74.6    $    71.1    $    96.2    $    97.7
Portion of Rents Representative of Interest Factor        12.5         12.1         11.1          9.7          9.2
                                                     ---------    ---------    ---------    ---------    ---------
Fixed Charges, Excluding Capitalized Interest             84.7         86.7         82.2        105.9        106.9
Capitalized Interest                                        --          0.2          0.2          0.2          0.2
                                                     ---------    ---------    ---------    ---------    ---------

Total Fixed Charges                                  $    84.7    $    86.9    $    82.4    $   106.1    $   107.1
                                                     =========    =========    =========    =========    =========

Ratio of Earnings to Fixed Charges                         4.3x         4.0x         3.6x         3.0x         2.6x
                                                     =========    =========    =========    =========    =========

</TABLE>
# C_2017095EN.01001002.xml

| 27.3.2017 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 95/10 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

27.3.2017

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 95/10

---

Judgment of the General Court of 14 February 2017 — Pandalis v EUIPO — LR Health & Beauty Systems (Cystus)

(Case T-15/16) (1)

1

(((EU trade mark - Revocation proceedings - EU word mark Cystus - Partial revocation - Article 51(1)(a) of Regulation (EC) No 207/2009 - No genuine use of the mark)))

(2017/C 095/18)

Language of the case: German

Parties

Parties

Applicant: Georgios Pandalis (Glandorf, Germany) (represented by: A. Franke, lawyer)

Applicant:

Defendant: European Union Intellectual Property Office (represented by: S. Hanne, Agent)

Defendant:

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court: LR Health & Beauty Systems GmbH (Ahlen, Germany) (represented by: N. Weber and L. Thiel, lawyers)

Other party to the proceedings before the Board of Appeal of EUIPO, intervener before the General Court:

Re:

Re:

Action brought against the decision of the First Board of Appeal of EUIPO of 30 October 2015 (Case R 2839/2014-1), relating to revocation proceedings between LR Health & Beauty Systems and Mr Pandalis.

Operative part of the judgment

Operative part of the judgment

The Court:

| 1. | Dismisses the action; |
| --- | --- |

1.

Dismisses the action;

| 2. | Orders Mr Georgios Pandalis to pay the costs. |
| --- | --- |

2.

Orders Mr Georgios Pandalis to pay the costs.

---

(1)  OJ C 90, 7.3.2016.

1

---
Part 2, Section II: Accounts and Definitions

The account descriptions provide basic information about each USSGL account, including:

Account Title 

Account Number

Normal Balance of the Account (Debit or Credit) 

Account Definition

Page 1 of 1
Before the Third Division,

April 8, 1953

No. 57253.

protest 193134-K (New York).

#### S. P. Skinner Co., Inc., and Dorf International, Ltd. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Johnson, J.

In accordance with stipulation of counsel that certain items of the merchandise consist of china or porcelain figures similar in all material respeets to those passed upon in *Wm. S. Pitcairn Corp.*v. *United States*(39 C. C. P. A. 15, C. A. D. 458), the claim of the plaintiffs was sustained.
|   | (1) | The                Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)                of                the Securities Exchange Act of 1934;                and |
|--------|-----|-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

|   | (2) | The                information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material                respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the                Company. |
|--------|-----|---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

| November                14, 2006 |                                                                                          | /s/ Timothy                Neher |
|----------------------------------|----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|---------------------------------------|
|                             | Timothy                Neher, Chief Executive Officer (Principal                Executive Officer) |

----
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

WESTERN DISTRICT

IN RE: ADOPTION OF: G.A.

PETITION OF: A.A., FATHER

:

:

:

:

:

No. 26 WAL 2023

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

IN RE: ADOPTION OF: P.A.

PETITION OF: A.A., FATHER

:

:

:

:

:

No. 27 WAL 2023

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

IN RE: ADOPTION OF: D.A.

PETITION OF: A.A., FATHER

:

:

:

:

:

No. 28 WAL 2023

Petition for Allowance of Appeal 

from the Order of the Superior Court

ORDER

PER CURIAM

AND NOW, this 27th day of March, 2023, the Petition for Allowance of Appeal is 

DENIED.
**Exhibit 31.2**

 

**CERTIFICATION**

 

I, Brian R. Ervine, certify that:

 

1. I have reviewed this quarterly report on Form 10-Q of EvolvingSystems, Inc.;

 

2. Based on my knowledge, this report does notcontain any untrue statement of a material fact or omit to state a materialfact necessary to make the statements made, in light of the circumstances underwhich such statements were made, not misleading with respect to the periodcovered by this report;

 

3. Based on my knowledge, the financial statements,and other financial information included in this report, fairly present in allmaterial respects the financial condition, results of operations and cash flowsof the registrant as of, and for, the periods presented in this report;

 

4. The registrant’s other certifying officer(s) andI are responsible for establishing and maintaining disclosure controls andprocedures (as defined in Exchange Act Rules 13a-15(e) and 15d-15(e)) for theregistrant and have:

 

(a) Designed such disclosurecontrols and procedures, or caused such disclosure controls and procedures tobe designed under our supervision, to ensure that material information relatingto the registrant, including its consolidated subsidiaries, is made known to usby others within those entities, particularly during the period in which thisreport is being prepared;

 

(b) Evaluated theeffectiveness of the registrant’s disclosure controls and procedures andpresented in this report our conclusions about the effectiveness of thedisclosure controls and procedures, as of the end of the period covered by thisreport based on such evaluation; and

 

(c) Disclosed in this reportany change in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting thatoccurred during the registrant’s most recent fiscal quarter (the registrant’sfourth fiscal quarter in the case of an annual report) that has materiallyaffected, or is reasonably likely to materially affect, the registrant’sinternal control over financial reporting; and

 

5.        Theregistrant’s other certifying officer(s) and I have disclosed, based on ourmost recent evaluation of internal control over financial reporting, to theregistrant’s auditors and the audit committee of the registrant’s board ofdirectors (or persons performing the equivalent functions):

 

(a) All significantdeficiencies and material weaknesses in the design or operation of internalcontrol over financial reporting which are reasonably likely to adverselyaffect the registrant’s ability to record, process, summarize and reportfinancial information; and

 

(b) Any fraud, whether ornot material, that involves management or other employees who have asignificant role in the registrant’s internal control over financial reporting.

 
| Date: May 10, 2004                                |
|---------------------------------------------------|
|                                              |
| /s/ BRIAN R. ERVINE                               |   |
| Brian R. Ervine                                   |
| Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer |

 

----
United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 12-2764

___________________________

Steven Donnelle Cody

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

Ms. Jacueline Newburn, Jail Administrator, Clark County Detention Center; Tim

Patterson, Chief Deputy, Clark County Detention Center; Rick Loy, Interim Jail

Administrator, Clark County Detention Center; David Turner, Sheriff, Clark

County; Raymond Moore, Jailer

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees

------------------------------

Steven D. Cody

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

Jacueline Newborn, Jail Administrator, Clark County Detention Center; Tim

Patterson, Chief Deputy, Clark County Detention Center; Rick Loy, Jail

Administrator, Clark County Detention Center; David Turner, Sheriff, Clark

County; Officer Moore

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees

------------------------------
Steven Cody

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

Rick Loy, Jail Administrator; Ray Winsfield, Chief Deputy

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendants - Appellees

____________

 Appeal from United States District Court 

for the Western District of Arkansas - Hot Springs

____________

 Submitted: April 11, 2013

Filed: April 16, 2013

[Unpublished]

____________

Before WOLLMAN, BOWMAN, and GRUENDER, Circuit Judges. 

____________

PER CURIAM.

Inmate Steven Donnelle Cody appeals from the order of the District Court,1

entered after an evidentiary hearing, dismissing his consolidated 42 U.S.C. § 1983

actions. Upon careful consideration of Cody’s arguments for reversal, we conclude

that the District Court properly entered judgment for the defendants based on the

hearing evidence. See Holden v. Hirner, 663 F.3d 336, 340–42 (8th Cir. 2011)

The Honorable Robert T. Dawson, United States District Judge for the

1

Western District of Arkansas, adopting the report and recommendation of the

Honorable Barry A. Bryant, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District

of Arkansas.

-2-
(discussing a pretrial detainee’s failure-to-protect claim); Story v. Norwood, 659 F.3d

680, 684–85 (8th Cir. 2011) (reviewing for clear error a district court’s findings of

fact made following an evidentiary hearing, which is the equivalent of a bench trial,

and noting that credibility findings are virtually unreviewable on appeal); Crow v.

Montgomery, 403 F.3d 598, 601–02 (8th Cir. 2005) (explaining that a pretrial

detainee’s conditions-of-confinement claims are analyzed under the same deliberateindifference standard asthose brought by convicted prisoners: the detainee must show

that conditions posed a substantial risk ofserious harm to his health orsafety and that

defendants knew of but were deliberately indifferent to this risk).

The judgment of the District Court is affirmed, and Cody’s pending motion is

denied. 

______________________________

-3-
1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA : CRIMINAL ACTION

:

 v. :

:

JAMES WHITTED : NO. 05-598-02

ORDER

AND NOW, this 25th day of April, 2013, defendant’s petition for relief under 28 

U.S.C. § 2255 is DENIED. 

There are no grounds for issuance of a certificate of appealability.

BY THE COURT:

/s/ Michael M. Baylson 

Michael M. Baylson, U.S.D.J.

O:\CRIMINAL CASES\05-598 HARRIS, US V\05CR598-2.042413.ORDER.2255.DOCX
**Proposed New USSGL Account for 2022 (Will Vote in May 2021):**

**Account Title:**Actual Repayment of Borrowing Authority Converted to Cash - Prior-Year 

Balances 

**Account Number:**414202 

**Normal Balance:**Credit 

**Definition:**Amounts transferred to the General Fund of the U.S. Government by a non-expenditure transfer of prior-year balances for unused or excess borrowing amounts to repay debt. The prior-year definite borrowing authority has been exercised but has not been used to liquidate obligations.

**Justification**: New USSGL account to separate prior-year from current-year.

**Proposed Modifications to USSGL Account for 2022 (Will Vote in May 2021):**

**Account Title:**Actual Repayment of Borrowing Authority Converted to Cash – **Current-Year**

**Authority**

**Account Number:**414200 

**Normal Balance:**Credit 

**Definition:**Amounts transferred to the General Fund of the U.S. Government by a non-expenditure transfer **of current-year authority** for unused or excess borrowing amounts to repay debt. The **current-year** borrowing authority has been exercised but has not been used to liquidate obligations.

**Justification:** Modify USSGL account to separate prior-year from current-year.

Page 2 of 2IRC Handout February 10, 2021
**Exhibit 32.1**

 

**CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICERPURSUANT TO18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350,AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002**

 

I,Thaddeus Dupper, certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adoptedpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that theQuarterly Report of Evolving Systems, Inc. on Form 10-Q for thequarterly period ended September 30, 2010 fully complies with therequirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the SecuritiesExchange Act of 1934 and that information contained in such Form 10-Qfairly presents in all material respects the financial condition and results ofoperations of Evolving Systems, Inc.

 
| /s/ THADDEUS DUPPER                   |   |
|---------------------------------------|--------|
| Thaddeus  Dupper                      |   |
| Chairman  and Chief Executive Officer |   |
| November 4,  2010                |   |

 

 

This certification is furnished with this Quarterly Report on Form 10-Qpursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002 and shall not,except to the extent required by such Act, be deemed filed for purposes of Section 18of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended (the “Exchange Act”). Suchcertification will not be deemed to be incorporated by reference into anyfiling under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or the Exchange Act,except to the extent that we specifically incorporate it by reference.

 

----